C100: Interview Demo Reel

My constructive critique. Most of the shots were 'nice enough', but you can push harder to say more with your composition and lighting than 'nice enough'. That's a nit pick. Only real issue for me (slight issue) was the punch-ins; eye-lines were too similar, shot sizes often too similar too. You need more dynamic in your A/B/C camera set up to make them work without jarring.
 
@Ned: My Countryman B6 I had to send in for repair; a $250 repair on a $330 mic (repaired at Countryman). Go figure. But aside from that all my lavs have been working fine, though I've only been using them for 2-4 years. Even so, lavs are relatively cheap; top of the line ones cost about $500 which isn't all that much, at least compared to top of the line boom mics at $2k, and the boom mics will last forever, as you said, with the boom mics being primarily what I use for interviews in general. So the two high end boom mics I got cost me $2700 (I got the Sanken CS-3e used for a good price) and has substantially improved my audio for the next 20 or so years. Still a good deal I say.

Yeah, you might be right about SEO. I've only gotten one client as a result of a Canon C100 search, but one client is one client, and they're a good one too.

I've gotten more clients from Craigslist than any other job site, and some well paying ones too. They're few and far between on Craigslist and most of the time they don't have the budget, but it doesn't take finding many good clients to make it worth the effort. I've gotten a couple or few gigs from Production Hub, but there aren't a whole lot of jobs posts there in general; when there are relevant post they're generally good. StaffMeUp has a lot of job posts and I had a paid subscription for a few months; I applied for a lot of jobs there which I felt well qualified for and which on Production Hub or Craigslist I'd generally get a response back and often end up getting hired, but on StaffMeUp the general response was crickets chirping, so I kind of gave up there. Perhaps it's because StaffMeUp is more reality TV oriented and I have limited experience on reality TV shoots, while Production Hub and Craigslist have more corporate work. But even the corporate postings on StaffMeUp never led to anything for me. All I got out of StaffMeUp were a couple very low paid reality TV gigs and a PA job which, well, paid PA prices, but was a decent experience since it was my first time on an Alexa set.


@indiawilds: The Amira guy was different because he was trying to mislead you, a person and potential client, not a search engine. I see a difference. As I mentioned, I'm very clear with my clients and on the Interview Vimeo page it mentions multiple times it was not shot with a C300 Mark II. If I was to make a Vimeo video titled, "Eric Coughlin has a Canon C300 Mark II coming in 2-3 months to Tampa, FL," which would then show up in Canon C300 Mark II search results (being dishonest to search engines), but would be very overtly clear to anyone reading it, would you have a problem with that?

That's essentially what the video is doing now; the title (as described in the description on Vimeo) is not saying I shot with the C300 Mark II for that video, but that I will be getting one soon and then adding that footage to the reel. If someone fails to read the description and then contacts me, I would clarify from there.

I know a guy locally here who has an equipment list on his website which includes a Red, C300, etc., which he doesn't actually own (I know at least one other guy who does that, and it doesn't seem to be very uncommon practice). Rather, from what he told me he has easy access to them via friends and colleagues who will rent to him. So is he misleading his clients? Does it really make any difference whether he owns the cameras or not if he is able to show up with them for a shoot tomorrow (let's just assume for the sake of argument he has a setup where he doesn't have to worry about the cameras not being available)? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him listing that gear on his equipment list and am just asking the question; I only list gear on my equipment list that I own (with a mention of a "pre-ordered" C300 Mark II). Interestingly, though, that guy does show up very well in Google searches for our area.

Edit: Well, the tags seem to be getting the results on Google well enough currently, so I've removed the camera titles from the title, at least for now.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
My constructive critique. Most of the shots were 'nice enough', but you can push harder to say more with your composition and lighting than 'nice enough'. That's a nit pick. Only real issue for me (slight issue) was the punch-ins; eye-lines were too similar, shot sizes often too similar too. You need more dynamic in your A/B/C camera set up to make them work without jarring.
Click to expand...
Care to clarify what you mean by pushing harder than 'nice enough'? You mean more artsy and creative rather than standard? Any examples of suggestions?

My interview setups have become pretty standardized in the sense of my framing between them. I've thought of changing it up some to, for example, have a very wide shot (say feet to head), etc. Haven't done so yet, but it's been a consideration. As an example, I thought the way the guy composed the interviews in this MusicBed video was interesting and unique; I'm not totally sold on his low wide shot where Philip Bloom and Shane Hulrburt look a bit awkward with how they're sitting, but it is kind of interesting, and the wide shot of Eliot Raush at 0:22 looks good to me.

In regard to the eye-lines being similar I feel like you're playing with fire any time you break the rule of thirds (aside from center composed which works for some types of videos). Sometimes breaking rules works, most times it doesn't. I've seen plenty of poorly composed interviews with multi-cam where the interviewee is at the edge of the frame with no look room, where the cameras are breaking the 180 degree rule and the interviewee is on the left and then right side of the frame, and the eye-line is just all over the place, making you think everything was just done randomly. I'm open to getting creative, but I feel like one has to really know what they're doing to pull it off when it comes to breaking rules.
 
Yes, by nice enough, I mean they look like standard, do it by the numbers, with your eyes shut kind of set-ups. Nothing wrong with that, but there are many other creative ways to get the job done.

As for eyelines jarring, for me it had more to do with the shot sizes and angles being too similar, nothing to do with rule of thirds.

I wouldn't call the music bed piece unique, it was interesting, but not without fault, but it did demonstrate a willingness to be more dynamic and dramatic in approach, which is exactly what I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
I can see perhaps the medium shot to tight on some of my shots could be wider on the medium and tighter on the tight to give more difference. But you're saying a difference in angle is necessary too? I've seen so many people do it the way I'm doing it, two cameras right next to each other (almost the same angle) for the medium and tight, that I'd think there's nothing wrong with cutting from a medium to tight from the same angle. Are they all doing it wrong? Is this a filmmaking rule I'm not aware of?

I checked out you work (hope you don't mind me bringing it up here, but it seems relevant since we're talking about approaches to composition) and saw for this video you were doing a medium mostly straight on and a slightly off-axis for the tight, which thus gave it more difference as you said. Looked good. One interview shot I didn't get was this one. How can you justify having the interviewee looking into the edge of the frame like that with no look room? Well composed, but shouldn't he be looking into the empty frame instead of the edge of it?
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
I can see perhaps the medium shot to tight on some of my shots could be wider on the medium and tighter on the tight to give more difference. But you're saying a difference in angle is necessary too? I've seen so many people do it the way I'm doing it, two cameras right next to each other (almost the same angle) for the medium and tight, that I'd think there's nothing wrong with cutting from a medium to tight from the same angle. Are they all doing it wrong? Is this a filmmaking rule I'm not aware of?

I checked out you work (hope you don't mind me bringing it up here, but it seems relevant since we're talking about approaches to composition) and saw for this video you were doing a medium mostly straight on and a slightly off-axis for the tight, which thus gave it more difference as you said. Looked good. One interview shot I didn't get was this one. How can you justify having the interviewee looking into the edge of the frame like that with no look room? Well composed, but shouldn't he be looking into the empty frame instead of the edge of it?
Click to expand...

If it's criticism you are asking for it doesn't seem appropriate to get defensive and then dig into someone else's work.
 
I'm trying to discuss interview techniques which I was finding difficult to do while only using my own work as examples. If he is suggesting ways to improve my interview work then it would make sense that his own videos would be an indication of how he thinks interviews ought to be done, and thus would be relevant to the discussion.

He suggested doing things differently. I followed up with a legitimate question (based on his work) on how someone looking into the edge of the frame (doing things differently) can be proper.
 
remsyatassi said:
If it's criticism you are asking for it doesn't seem appropriate to get defensive and then dig into someone else's work.
Click to expand...

It does seem odd, but I can handle it:-)

Eric Coughlin said:
I've seen so many people do it the way I'm doing it, two cameras right next to each other (almost the same angle) for the medium and tight, that I'd think there's nothing wrong with cutting from a medium to tight from the same angle. Are they all doing it wrong? Is this a filmmaking rule I'm not aware of?
Click to expand...

There are no rules. Things either work or they don't. Indeed, what works in one situation might not work in another. It depends on context and the intent of the filmmaker. That said, as a general rule of thumb, a punch-in should be at least twice the scale as the master shot.

Eric Coughlin said:
I checked out you work
Click to expand...

To correct you, you checked some of my work out. I can't post 99.9% of what I shoot. I certainly can't post my reel.

Eric Coughlin said:
One interview shot I didn't get was this one. How can you justify having the interviewee looking into the edge of the frame like that with no look room? Well composed, but shouldn't he be looking into the empty frame instead of the edge of it?
Click to expand...

I don't need to justify it, it's just an an artistic choice I made. It's called negative space BTW. I often use negative space in interviews. It can work really well. It can also look pretentious. It's fine line, but fun to cross.
 
I am on the road so I can not look at the Liam links, but suffice it to say, the beauty of shooting is that there are NO RULES. All I care about is will the client hire me again. These "rules" are useful when teaching students in film school, to give them guidelines like the Rule of Thirds, 180 degree line, looking room, etc. but that's just to teach them, and at 28 you're still learning but you seem busy so you can start to forget the rules and do some experimenting as long as you don't upset clients.

A problem with promising the client and bringing two cameras (and God forbid three) is that you'd better hope there's a wide enough useable background. That can often dictate how far apart they are. I suggest you start studying higher end docs, such as on HBO, they have a bunch and also record as I do Dateline, Frontline, Nova, American Experience, etc., the highest of quality docs and study them because they will all have two cameras for interviews. I often freeze and rewind (drives my wife nuts) to see if it's a punch in or if it is multi cam how far apart they are, etc. If someone talks a lot with their hands it's a wider shot, etc. All I watch on Netflix are the docs, sometimes with the sound off, just to study comp, lighting, etc. I am forever a film student and you should be too.

But...the problem with corporate and non-profit fundraising docs is we are there to make them look good, especially middle age women, fading celebs, The CEO, The Big Contributor, etc. So my lighting will tend to be flatter to avoid wrinkles, if they have a double chin I raise the Diva two feet, I won't be too tight in a close up. I'm there to make them look goooooood. Hey, most people over 30 can't afford a close up since HD was started. But I digress...

I am now so old I have seen many styles come and go. I was shooting professionally ten years before you was born! There was a time I had to do Dutch angles, Shakey Cam (started by an AT&T spot) or totally hand held for interviews. Or snap zooms in and do fake rack focuses. There was what was called the 60 Minutes CU where the top of the frame were the eyebrows and the bottom was their lower lip. At 28 I don't think you were around for "Float"? Also a time when we did "Haircuts" where we chopped off the subject's head for no real reason except to start a new look. And don't forget the second angle that was B&W, or ugh: Add Film Grain. That style is now gone too...All these styles and "rules" come and go. When all you young folks see your samples ten years from now with the ridiculous, un-motivated, sliding back and forth, you will be amused (and embarrassed) and say, "Why the F did I move the camera back and forth for no reason?" I will tell you the reason: Because everyone else was doing it! Please write this down and put it in your sock drawer, open it and read it ten years from now: "What happened to all the slider manufacturers?"

For much of my career I shot nonfiction TV shows, not reality shows (although I've done a few, yuk), but clients like History, Nat Geo, Discovery, Travel, a zillion detective shows, etc. and there is a style guide they would send out with screen grabs. Some would say how many degrees the interview subject's nose should be off axis to the lens and I would have to look for my kid's protractor. And they would actually have lighting ratios but fortunately I still had my film era light meters. You are fortunate that we now work in an age of sloppiness so no one cares as long as the focus and exposure are right on. But I digress...

So in sum, there is no standard or must have, or by-the-book, or follow-the-rules composition and/or lighting. I do believe that if you are the DP for an entire project the look should stay the same from scene to scene, or if you are shooting just the Tampa sequences you should follow the lead of the DP's previously shot segments, but if you are doing the whole video then that gives you a little freedom to play with the style. Don't go crazy. I'm a CYA shooter and usually have the client, director or whoever check the monitor. I don't consider myself a whore, rather, a very expensive, high price escort. I arrive and do what you would like me to do. I don't have a style, rather, I have a million of them and I pick the one out of my bag of tricks that suits the scene-client-situation. Hope that makes sense.

Lastly, when I got out of film school I was fortunate to be the assistant of a great doc DP for a couple of years. The first thing he said is forget everything I learned or think I know, we're starting over as of today. Unfortunately, nowadays your generation pops out of college, buys gear and starts shooting by themselves. Perhaps that's why some rules may be of comfort? So since you can't be an apprentice to a master the next best thing will be to watch the best of the docs. Do it with the sound off, all day in your office while you're doing other stuff but watch the comp and lighting. And with our high ISOs now I see today's look is more natural light. But hey, that's just today! Also, attend local film festivals documentary programs.
 
Last edited:
Eric, your work is more than satisfying. Go on, move on...I bet your clients are very pleased with your work.
 
Wow this thread has been a huge help. Great reel by the way, was just thinking of how I need to start working on a corporate reel to try and get some more work here soon. It was also nice to see your rate card as I think it showed me I should probably be charging a little more since I'm on the other side of Florida, somewhat of a similar market area and I don't want to be the guy undercutting everyone. Anyways the reel looks good, as when you hear interview reel it doesn't really sound exciting but this was cut together really well.
 
I shoot a ton of interviews Eric and I think the material on your reel is beautiful. While I think critiques of your work are fine because that's what you asked for, IMHO, ultimately they are pointless. I agree with the other posters about, "It either works or it doesn't" Sure, the rules are important to know but you do have to develop your own look and style and it looks as if you are well on your way to doing that. If your clients are happy, you are making money and turning out good looking work, what's not to like? I would be curious to see your work in lighting scenes with actors that try to evoke a feeling or tell a story but based upon what I see, you definitely could do it. I don't know about why you charge so little for additional cameras but Florida is a very different market than here in LA. I rarely shoot two camera interviews unless there are two talent, guess I live on the edge, changing framing while the interviewer asks the questions. This gives my interviews two or three different looks although I am not always in the more CU framing when the most emotional soundbite reveals itself but I find mixing up the framing gives the editor (which is sometimes me and sometimes not) more variety to work with without me hauling a ton of extra gear, extra tripod, set of batteries and cards/drives, but more power to you if that helps you to differentiate in your market.
 
I appreciate the critiques. I'm aware that my interview framing is standard and I think the critiques will help motivate me to consider trying different approaches.

Here is another three camera setup from a guy I know who is in my niche of Catholic media. His standard interview setup is two C300s and a 1Dc; he also has a Red Dragon but uses it mostly for b-roll and not interviews since it's more of a pain to work with for long form work, and has a C100 which sometimes gets used for behind-the-scenes and such. In that video he does a super wide (which I'm curious to try, though it makes using a boom difficult or impossible), a front on medium, and a more off-axis tight. Lighting is pretty harsh. I think it looks good overall (though unfortunately his client (not him) uploaded the video in 720p on Youtube instead of 1080p, which always drives me nuts).


@puredrifting: I'm actually curious to see how my lighting with actors on a staged set would look as well since I haven't done much narrative or staged work since my (unpaid) college days when I did a lot of narrative student films (and didn't know what I was doing). I've done the 48 Hour Film Project for the past four years but it's always rushed and this year I was a co-DP and we had a gaffer, so while I chose a lot of the shots I didn't do a lot with the lighting. I guess one of these days I'll do a personal project with actors for portfolio. I've been approached by some clients regarding higher end commercial work (not corporate) and so far don't really have anything to show, and it is something I'd like to get into, particularly with the C300 Mark II which will be more up to the task on those types of shoots. I suppose when I get the camera I'll try to come up with a project or two to put it through it's paces. Feel free to check out this video I made when I first got my C100; it has some more creative lighting I did in it, but no actors.

puredrifting said:
I don't know about why you charge so little for additional cameras but Florida is a very different market than here in LA.
Click to expand...
A Canon C100 Mark I with autofocus rents from LensRentals.com for $125 for one day not including shipping (which is sort of free if you're already on their yearly subscription thing); I had mentioned charging an extra $100 per C100. I believe it's generally expected to as a shooter with equipment charge a bit less than what a camera rents for from a rental agency, otherwise it won't make much sense for a client to rent from you nor will your gear list be of any importance to them if they can get a skilled shooter who doesn't own gear and rent gear separately for the same price.

I think a lot of people bought their C100s for $5500 (myself) or even at $6500 in it's first year of release, and thus expect that it should rent for $200-$300, but the fact is the Mark I now sells new for just $3000 to $3500 and thus the rental prices have dropped to reflect that. I'd have hard time seeing an owner/op renting out additional C100s on a shoot for $200 a piece when the client could have gotten them from LensRentals or elsewhere for a lot less. I know one guy locally who has four C100s and says he has rented out (as a shooter) additional ones for $200 a piece on limited occasions, which I guess just means either his client(s) were/was ill informed on current rental prices or wanted to save a little time from renting it themself. Either way, I still don't think in general it makes sense to charge more than what rental agencies are charging.

Then there's also the fact that I already own the cameras, and not just for multi-cam interviews, but also for a lot of multi-cam event work I do, so it's not costing me anything to bring them to an interview shoot. Some of the people in this topic act like it's some kind of big deal to bring multiple cameras to a interview (which is a pretty safe environment for a camera), with each camera which sells now for $3500, when their lighting kit costs more than that, or a couple of their lenses, things which they may not be charging separately for (I mean, does anyone charge extra to bring their 24-70 and 70-200 which are $4000 together?). And the lights, meanwhile, take 30 minutes to setup for an interview, while two extra cameras takes just five minutes to set up. For the price of a C300 at it's original price or the C300 Mark II at $16,000 plus batteries and media you could get 6 C100 Mark I's. Charge appropriately for them, sure, but why the attitude that it's such a big deal to bring six C100s to a shoot when it's the same price as a single C300 which people are regularly bringing to shoots (and also charging appropriately for)?

I filmed a wedding with seven C100s recently (three were mine and four belonged to a guy I regularly work with); we didn't really need seven, but since our gear bags were already packed in their default configuration and we had them there, we figured, why not (plus it gave us bragging rights). Sometimes I find it can take more time to take gear out of my bag for a shoot then it does to just leave it in there, so it's common that I'll bring gear to shoots that I have no intention of using on the shoot, such as bringing audio gear on a b-roll only shoot that doesn't need any audio, lavs or whatnot.

And then sometimes you just have to figure out what makes financial sense. If I were getting a day rate of $1000 on a regular basis (which I don't, but that's the rate I tell my newer clients currently), not charging an extra $100 for additional cameras, say shooting 150 days in a year, for a pay of $150k, and had invested just $15k in cameras over a three year period, I'd say financially I'm doing pretty well (particularly for a younger person, though that's also pretty good pay at any age assuming your business expenses aren't too high). I guess if you live somewhere expensive like in Manhattan then you may not be satisfied with a final income of $100k per year, but for most places I'd say that's doing pretty well.

Sure, making more would be nice, and should be strived for (hence my business model of continually buying better gear and trying to improve my skills and quality in order to up my rates), but the only point I'm making is that from a financial standpoint investing just $5k in your most important asset per year with a return of $150k sounds like a good investment to me whether or not you charge and extra $100-$200 per camera to bring on a shoot.

And I haven't really thought of bringing extra cameras to interviews as something that I've used to differentiate myself in my market (though I suppose it can help); it's more so that I already own the cameras and from there on want to do the best I can with what I have.
 
Last edited:
Really nice work, some of the best I've seen!

My critique isn't about your video work, I'd say your website design doesn't match the quality of your video work. Have you thought about updating it?
 
analog_addict said:
My critique isn't about your video work, I'd say your website design doesn't match the quality of your video work. Have you thought about updating it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, my website is pretty lame and updating it has been on a list of things to do. I've got just one edit in the que to finish, so perhaps after that I can get to the website. My web design skills are pretty low, but perhaps it's just a simple matter of finding a good plug and play theme and going from there. I've heard having a quality website professionally done costs around $5000, which is more than I'd like to spend on a site at the moment.

Also, a lot of my clients come from me directly e-mailing my work (Vimeo links) to them and from referrals, as opposed to random people stumbling upon my website, so perhaps my website's quality isn't all that important for the way I market. Still, I'd assume it is important and worth spending some time on.

I think I'll make a separate topic on how people do their websites as I'm curious about that.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Yeah, my website is pretty lame and updating it has been on a list of things to do. I've got just one edit in the que to finish, so perhaps after that I can get to the website. My web design skills are pretty low, but perhaps it's just a simple matter of finding a good plug and play theme and going from there. I've heard having a quality website professionally done costs around $5000, which is more than I'd like to spend on a site at the moment.

Also, a lot of my clients come from me directly e-mailing my work (Vimeo links) to them and from referrals, as opposed to random people stumbling upon my website, so perhaps my website's quality isn't all that important for the way I market. Still, I'd assume it is important and worth spending some time on.

I think I'll make a separate topic on how people do their websites as I'm curious about that.
Click to expand...

Have you thought of moving to something like wordpress or squarespace if you want to be less technical with plugins? Fairly priced and I personaly think it might be a nice upgrade from your current site. I do understand the vimeo links, I mainly keep my website updated because more of my payed work is photo so I can keep everything on there in a nice clean environment.
 
ReelFilmGeek said:
Have you thought of moving to something like wordpress or squarespace if you want to be less technical with plugins? Fairly priced and I personaly think it might be a nice upgrade from your current site. I do understand the vimeo links, I mainly keep my website updated because more of my payed work is photo so I can keep everything on there in a nice clean environment.
Click to expand...
I'm using WordPress currently. I always have trouble finding a good theme that is highly customizable.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I'm using WordPress currently. I always have trouble finding a good theme that is highly customizable.
Click to expand...
That was my issue and why I moved to squarespace. They have a 14 day free trial where you can play around with it. They only have like 15-20 themes but they are all sleek and customizable and work well on both desktop and mobile plus they have awesome customer support. Check them out htey probably have something you will like. I'll probably be playing around with my site again since I'm going through rebranding my portfolio and hopefully adding some more video work to my site so
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Yeah, my website is pretty lame and updating it has been on a list of things to do. I've got just one edit in the que to finish, so perhaps after that I can get to the website. My web design skills are pretty low, but perhaps it's just a simple matter of finding a good plug and play theme and going from there. I've heard having a quality website professionally done costs around $5000, which is more than I'd like to spend on a site at the moment.

Also, a lot of my clients come from me directly e-mailing my work (Vimeo links) to them and from referrals, as opposed to random people stumbling upon my website, so perhaps my website's quality isn't all that important for the way I market. Still, I'd assume it is important and worth spending some time on.

I think I'll make a separate topic on how people do their websites as I'm curious about that.
Click to expand...
There are freelance IT professionals who regularly do sites at close to half of your cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top